Well, that's exactly how I understood the term, but I see Colman disagrees.

Thus you can tar me with fascism, stalinism and nazism.

Please. I haven't tarred you with anything. Unless you believe that al-Qaida terrorism tars Hindus, there is no connection.

I defend secularism, not any ideology.

That, too, can become a fundamentalism the way I understood the term (but again Colman apparently doesn't), if you stick to secular principles in an infexible unresponding way (i.e. using secular principles as the sole standard to judge issues). (For example, I would consider a blank rejection of the German practice of church tax and religion courses at public schools secular fundamentalism, a rejection after considering the practical positives and negatives not.)

I note I myself am quite close to secular fundamentalism, even if I am at loggerheads with you on the cartoons issue. (I support the French ban on religious symbols and the shroud in school for example, dismissing a lot of counterarguments I read on progressive British blogs.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}